F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[navyreco]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

---------- Post added at 06:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

Japan tells U.S. it may halt F-35 purchase if prices rise
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The Defense Ministry has indicated to the U.S. Department of Defense the possibility of halting purchases of the F-35 stealth jet, which Japan has picked as its next-generation mainstay fighter, if prices skyrocket, sources close to Japan-U.S. ties said Wednesday.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Scratch]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Well, navyreco has obviously already posted the photos, following below is an article on the events depicted above.
The JSF program is now starting with captive weapons carry tests. Just a few days after the A-model made the first such flight, the B now flew the 25mm gun pod and two missiles.
Also just recently, a british test pilot became the first foreign service member to fly the C-model in a test flight.
More weapons testing is to follow later in the year.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

F-35B flies with gun pod installed
By: Craig Hoyle London - 6 hours ago

Lockheed Martin's short take-off and vertical landing F-35B has made its first flight with a key weapon system for the US Marine Corps installed.
Flown from the US Navy's Patuxent River test site in Maryland on 22 February, test aircraft BF-2 carried a 25mm gun pod on a centreline weapons station, in addition to two Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles beneath its outboard wing stations.

"Significant weapons testing for the F-35B and F-35C variants is scheduled for 2012, including fit checks, captive carriage, pit drop and aerial drop tests," said Lockheed.
Meanwhile, Royal Air Force experimental test pilot Sqn Ldr Jim Schofield has become the first UK pilot to fly the carrier variant F-35C, having performed a sortie in test aircraft CF-2 from Patuxent River.
As of 23 February, some 1,704 flights totalling more than 2,500h had been performed by the F-35 development and test fleet, said Lockheed. This total includes 114 flights conducted so far during 2012, it added.
BF-2's first flight with external stores came less than a week after a conventional take-off and landing F-35A AF-1 had also flown with two AIM-9X missiles as part of a payload including weapons carried in the aircraft's two internal bays.

==========================================================================================

On the aerial combat side, I think a F-35 should & will still be able to help itself in contested airspace. After all, it's designation still starts with an "F". And with new data link & weapon tech, new methods of fighting open up. In a strike package, a flight of A-A outfitted F-35 in stealth mode could still fly a detached escort and remain hidden from the opponent. With rather far reaching AIM-120D, they could then give silent fire-support to F-22s flying a fighter sweep, after the Raptors expand their own arsenal. The Raptors, in that contect, can become small force multipliers. So maybe in the end, one really can get away with some fewer dedicated A-A assets.
If 187 is the # to go, though, coming from a few hundred Eagles remains open to debate
I would still have liked the idea to continue with a "F-22 light". The airframe is really good anyway. Keep building it so the production line stays open. Just don't put the high end radar absorbant paint on it, derate engine thrust a bit, scale back the radar and datalink, EW capabilities a little. I guess that could save quite considerably in procurement and maintenance. And once required, upgrades can still be made. After all, I believe such a plane would still outperform the preceeding F-15s.

 

[delft]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I wouldn't like to try to develop a carrier aircraft based on either F-22 or YF-23. You start with a lot of compromises that are irrelevant to your new aircraft. It is very much better to start with an empty computer screen.

 

[Equation]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

How are you gonna achieve it without borrowing from others?

How about getting socialites like Romney to pay a little bit more than 15% of income tax? How about banning those 20 000 lobbyists from buying politicians for the sake of 1%? For instance, the contract that the Canadian government signed with LM is a freaking joke to begin with yet the Conservatives want to keep up their promise to further increase national debt to purchase a single-engined fighter with limited internal payload to patrol the wild Canadian Arctic.

There's no such thing as spending responsibly to ease the tax burden on the middle class which most of us belong. I can't believe I'll be pulling 60 hours/week so some Canadian and American politicians can work hard for the military-industrial complex.

Well said, but IMO they should separate Veterans Administration budget from the defense budget instead of combining them as together. Taking care of veterans are different than buying military hardware. The VA fund should be part of the medical funding, NOT as a part of the military budget.

 

[MiG-29]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I do agree.

We need a lot more Raptors than 187 or whatever the rediculous low number is. We need on the order of 400-500 at the least, IMHO. Sadly, we will definitely have to wait for a new adminisytration and congress for that to happen.

With that number there would be enough to go around for the F-22 to provide the air superiority and dominance they were meant to provide.

If we stay at this low level, then the F-35s are going to have to use their own in the A2A role, and all stealthed up with the missiles in their internal bays to provide the same.

The Raptors would be much more effective...but if they have to do it, the F-35s will work ..they will have to. I believe they are stealthy enough, have good enough manuervability, have excellent targeting, and with some AMRAAMs and AIM-9Xs will do the trick. The Air Force intends to use them in the A2A role, as does the Navy...but there is no question that the Raptor is better and coud and should provide that coverage in any Joint Operation.

I'd love to see a carrier version of the F-22 developed for the Navy's air superiority, fleet defense aircraft. An F-22 coupled with a new AIM-155A ALRAAM (Advanced Long Range Air to Air Missile) would regain what we lost (and more) when we retired the F-14 and the Phoenix. Lacking that, the NAvy could resurrect the loser in the ATF competition and use the YF-23 as the starting point. She was and is a very good aircraft as well, and I'd love to see her flying in numbers. but the F-22 would be the better logistical answer for the long run.

i do not understand why you need more Raptors, F-35 has AM-9X and HMS, good enough to kill fighters and with AIM-120D good BVR, to me F-35 is good enough, it only needs TVC nozzles ala PAKFA and perhaps lightening it and re-engining but so far i my opinion is a good jet, only not good for replacing A-10

 

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Also mig, more not good for replacing F-22, the F-35 is a lead sled, the Raptor is a Rocket Ship. The F-35 lacks some essential skill in A2A, because it was basically designed to be a follow on to the F-16, with some A2A capability thrown in to fight your way out once you perform your primary mission. I like Scratch's idea of Raptor light, the Raptor is far to capable in some area's, the Raptor pilot never has to wonder if there is a more capable aircraft, the F-35 pilot will live everyday knowing there are far more capable A2A aircraft even discounting the T-50 and J-20. Flankers and Fulcrum follow ons will proliferate not to mention, the Typhoon and Rafaels et al. Having said that, I am beginning to see what a fine airplane the F-35 is becoming, and I have every confidence that there are some massive efforts to get her up to speed, I hope the F-35 fan boys are right, in fact I am learning to love the Lightning and the A-10 fleet are getting some SLEs that will keep it up to date and capable. Mr Scratch I have another idea while we're dreaming, how about a Raptor +, get rid of that old analogue stuff and replace it with lighter and newer, and yes the Raptor is a very superior airframe and it is a crying shame if we let it go when we will likely need it most, and unfortunately that magic number is now 185.

 

[bd popeye]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

I wouldn't like to try to develop a carrier aircraft based on either F-22 or YF-23. You start with a lot of compromises that are irrelevant to your new aircraft. It is very much better to start with an empty computer screen.

Good post delft.

Exactly..those F-22s airframes are not built to withstand the pounding of carrier borne catapult launches and arrested landings.

 

[Scratch]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

On the F-35's "heritage line" - if that's what you want to call it - I'd like to point out that the F-16 started out as a light, and really capable (WVR) A-A fighter, wich over time was modified to do A-G work as well. Weight increased, thrust as well, wing area stayed the same, though, probably derogating turining capability a little. Still, to this day, she remains a formidable areal fighter.
The F-35, however, was trimmed for the strike role from the beginning, and from official figures, seems to have a poorer wing loading and T/W ratio. (The C-model's wingloading is superior to the F-16.)
Once in a while, when there's reports on the test program, there's test pilots talking about the never before seen agility of the new plane, though, whatever that's worth.
And I guess producing A-A oriented Lightning IIs with strapped out ground attack capabilities to make them lighter isn't really worth it.

I think the existing Raptor fleet will be taken pretty good care of, though. Continiued upgrade programs are well under way and the envisioned Blk40 mod with SAR, side looking arrays for full ISR capability, new weapons and so on and perhaps later EW upgrades will bring still further improved capabilities. However, I'm not sure how definite those plans are.

Finally, one of those older NATF concepts below. But for the future it seems the navy is now really down to two, still capable, multirole fighters with a somewhat limited reach.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Air Force Brat]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Scratch the final minimum number of the Hi end F-22 was to be 700 aircraft to replace well over 1000, F-15s as the Hi end of the Hi-Lo concept of Air Superiority. The planned order of 2400 F-35s would more than meet the 2230 F-16s purchased by the USAF to fill the Lo end of the Hi-Lo Scheme. The sec def called the F-35 the 75% solution, proclaiming the F-22 was to much airplane and the F-35 would be good enough, and ordered the Raptor cancelled, a political decision that the Air Force was unable to fight due to politics and hi level influence by the Army, Navy, and Marines. The Raptor got a bumm rapp the Lightning a free ride, even though it was already experiencing some developemental turbulence. That turbulence continues with the QLR and a follow on report detailing airframe buffeting focusing on the vertical stabs at around 15 to 25 degrees angle of attack or about half of the 50 degree max angle of attack. This is serious enough to cause airframe damage and a shortening of the aircrafts life span, it occures at high mach and high g loads, just where A2A manuevering lives. In addition the aircraft experience transonic roll off, or loss of directional control at these same hi angle of attack, high g A2A, manuevering at lower airspeeds as your airspeed bleeds off and you try to gain the advantage on your opponent. The air to air experts were overridden by the politicians, both civilian and military and the guy with the most votes wins, right or wrong.

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

Good post delft.

Exactly..those F-22s airframes are not built to withstand the pounding of carrier borne catapult launches and arrested landings.

Neither is the F-35a or F-35b, big daddy, and while I like the additional wing area of the C, the max g load falls to 7.5, and on the B it is 7.0. All that additional weight will negatively impact performance across the board IMHO.

 

[bd popeye]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Neither is the F-35a or F-35b, big daddy, and while I like the additional wing area of the C, the max g load falls to 7.5, and on the B it is 7.0. All that additional weight will negatively impact performance across the board IMHO.

I'm no engineer. I have no clue what you are trying to tell me. but!!! I do know this...carrier bore aircraft are designed as such. Period.